{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/4119", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 4119, "subject": "Crowley, then ...", "messages": 22, "voices": 11, "first": "2003-07-27T16:38:35+00:00", "last": "2003-07-30T16:53:18+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "katbarx at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2003-07-27T16:38:35+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Crowley, then ...", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Okay. So, after years of seeing people on this list rave about John Crowley, \nI've read\n_Little, Big_ over the last few weeks.\n\nAnd I just.\n\nDon't.\n\nGet it.\n\nI don't mean the story: I was able to follow that well enough, and more or \nless\nglom onto what it's about, but ... what's the _point_?\n\nCan someone tell me what I've missed here?" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Josh Geller", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2003-07-27T17:15:52+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Crowley, then ...", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sun, 2003-07-27 at 09:38, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nI don't mean the story: I was able to follow that well enough, and more or \nless glom onto what it's about, but ... what's the _point_?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Can someone tell me what I've missed here?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Which part don't you get?\n\n\nJ.\n\n___" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "katbarx at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2003-07-28T00:56:21+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Crowley, then ...", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Josh G quoted me and wrote ..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Can someone tell me what I've missed here?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Which part don't you get?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, it isn't so much a matter of parts. I think I got most of the parts. \nIt's\nthe whole that is escaping me. Or, rather, as I asked: What's the point?\n\nPerhaps my expectations were unreasonably high; I've been hearing the\npraises of this writer and this book for many years from people I respect\nhighly, quite a few of them on this here particular list. And, often, in\ncontext (like a recent post of yours about the proposed Wolfe symposium\n-- more about that below) that leads me to expect material of Lupine\ndensity and depth of meaning.\n\nI guess that's what I just didn't see in _Little, Big_. I have nothing _bad_\nto say about it: on the level of the sentence, it's as well written as a lot\nof work by, say, Wolfe, Le Guin, and Delany -- which I regard as extremely\nhigh prase. Above that level, I thought it an interesting story -- or, I \nsuppose,\nTale -- that Somehow never _quite_ caught on fire for me; never reached the\n\"Oh my God, I have to read one more chapter before I go to bed\" level of\nengagement. Now, I can reach that level of engagement in a number of ways;\nthe writers above generally achieve that. So does JK Rowling. _Perdido \nStreet\nStation_ hit it about halfway through. Spinrad, for all his faults, manages \nto\ngrab me from the beginning in most of his books (the others never do at \nall).\n\nSomehow, Crowley never did. And I feel certain that the fault lies not in \nhis\nstars but in me; that I simply missed the level of the book at which the \nreal\nengagement was available. But, having missed it, I simply can't tell you \nwhat\nit was that I missed.\n\nWhich probably doesn't help at all.\n\nSo ... I guess the question is, what is it about _Little, Big_ that earns it \nsuch\nhigh praise among you highly intelligent folks? I feel like I just flunked \nmy IQ\ntest." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Josh Geller", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2003-07-28T01:33:20+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Crowley, then ...", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sun, 2003-07-27 at 17:56, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nJosh G quoted me and wrote ..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Can someone tell me what I've missed here?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Which part don't you get?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well, it isn't so much a matter of parts. I think I got most of the parts. \nIt's the whole that is escaping me. Or, rather, as I asked: What's the point?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hmm.\n\nI find 'Little, Big' to be deeply moving. I don't guess I can answer.\n\nMaybe it's like jazz. Louis Armstrong was asked to explain jazz. He\nsaid 'If you have to ask, you'll never know'.\n\nI'd hate to think that is the case. \n\n'Little, Big' and two other Crowley books 'The Deep' and 'Engine Summer'\nare right up there in my favorite books along with TBotNS and Dhalgren\nand Bernal Diaz. The last time I compiled a top ten list, Crowley was\nthe only writer who made it twice.\n\nBut there's no accounting for tastes. Maybe you are just not meant to\nget it. I sure hope not.\n\n\nJ.\n\n___" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Alice K. Turner", "address": "aturner6 at nyc.rr.com" }, "date": "2003-07-27T22:51:11+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Crowley, then ...", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Blattid,\n\nIt is partly a sort of mood thing. a state of mind that people who read\nVictorian children's literature, or loved the fairy paintings of the period,\nwhen they were young can slip into easily, picking up on the many allusions\nthat come along and the light literary parodies. It is partly a kind of 60s\nthing, especially among New Yorkers. I suppose, but catching a rural\nnostalgia as well. Some of us get caught by the romance aspects, the love\naffair between Sylvie and Auberon and how it comes out in the end with equal\nsadness and Shakespearian gaiety. Some of us, back when at least, may have\nbeen struck by the kinkier aspects of the Tale, of which there are a fair\nnumber. And some just like the writing, which can be hypnotic.\n\nBut he certainly is not for everyone. Our Nutria feels even more negatively\nthan you do. And when I tried the book when it first came out, decades ago,\nI'm not sure I got through it.Our mantis persuaded me to try again--and I\nfound that my feelings had changed a lot, and that I was seduced by the\nbook. And then he and I started writing about Crowley and asking other\npeople to do so, and the rest is history. Of a sort.\n\nIt would be interesting if you told us what you did not like. I can tell you\nthat I did not like the Russell Eigenblick subplot, though I admit that he\nmanaged to fit it into the conclusion better than I expected.\n\n-alga" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Okay. So, after years of seeing people on this list rave about John\nCrowley.\nI've read\n_Little, Big_ over the last few weeks.\n\nAnd I just.\n\nDon't.\n\nGet it.\n\nI don't mean the story: I was able to follow that well enough, and more or\nless\nglom onto what it's about, but ... what's the _point_?\n\nCan someone tell me what I've missed here?\n\n--Blattid\n\n_________________________________________________________________\nThe new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*\nhttp://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail\n\n\n--" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2003-07-28T07:39:20+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Crowley, then ...", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Josh G quoted me and wrote ..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Can someone tell me what I've missed here?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Which part don't you get?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well, it isn't so much a matter of parts. I think I got most of the \nparts. \nIt's\nthe whole that is escaping me. Or, rather, as I asked: What's the \npoint?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I wonder if it is a book that, like LOTR, has been imitated so often \nthat it now may seem quaint and derivative to those soaked in the \nliterary tradition it started? There have been few direct ripoffs, \nbut the themes - and LITTLE,BIG is a book of moods, themes, and images -\nhave been imitated often. In my opinion the whole \"Urban fairyland\" \nmotif, elves in New York, started with LITTLE, BIG. \n\n\nhartshorn" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "-- " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Tom Foster", "address": "t.foster2 at ntlworld.com" }, "date": "2003-07-28T07:55:46+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Crowley, then ...", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Strange; that's almost exactly how I felt when I read it a few months ago. I\nhad read so many good things about Crowley that I thought I really should\nread some of his work. I enjoyed _Little, Big_ a lot, but it certainly\ndidn't grip me, nor did it fill me with the sort of wonder and awe that I\nfeel every time I (re-)read one of Wolfe's novels. I recently bought\n_Otherwise_, a book containing Crowley's first three novels. _The Deep_ I\nabsolutely loved, _Beasts_ seemed disjointed although it had some very good\nideas, and _Engine Summer_ (another book that seems to get a whole lot of\npraise in these parts) produced more or less the same reaction as _Little,\nBig_\n\nI would love to read _Aegypt_ as I understand it has a strong alchemy theme\nto it (a subject that fascinates me), but I can't find it anywhere for\nanything resembling a reasonable price (ditto _Love & Sleep_). It would seem\na shame to read _Daemonomania_ before the preceding titles, but it's the\nonly one of the three that can be bought easily.\n\n\nTom" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nOkay. So, after years of seeing people on this list rave about John\nCrowley, I've read\n_Little, Big_ over the last few weeks.\n\nAnd I just.\n\nDon't.\n\nGet it.\n\nI don't mean the story: I was able to follow that well enough, and\nmore or less\nglom onto what it's about, but ... what's the _point_?\n\nCan someone tell me what I've missed here?\n\n--Blattid" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2003-07-28T13:57:19+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Crowley, then ...", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"Alice K. Turner\" supposed:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It is partly a sort of mood thing. a state of mind\nthat people who read Victorian children's\nliterature, or loved the fairy paintings of the\nperiod, when they were young can slip into easily,\npicking up on the many allusions that come along\nand the light literary parodies. It is partly a kind\nof 60s thing, especially among New Yorkers." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'd have to agree with most of this and add that LB is\nthe kind of book that I could only enjoy now after\nhaving read a lot of other stuff that's become more of\na literary memory than something fresh. I personally\nenjoyed it because of the strains of Renaissance\nphilosophy (ie., Bruno and neoplatonism) that ran\nthrough it.\n\nI read in an interview that Crowley began LB as a kind\nof a \"concept book,\" intending to just write a book\nabout a family with their own private religion. And\nthe fairy stuff began as just a way to make that\nprivate religion more accessible to readers. But then\nthe fairy motifs took over. In the same interview (I\nthink), Crowley admitted that it was a book which\ndidn't have the same universal scope as he tried to\nget in his Aegypt series - it was something that was\nmore of a playing out of a minor personal obsession.\n\nThe real reason I so love that book, though, is that\nas a kid I was always hunting for fairy hills and\ncircle dances...which I always felt were just around\nthe corner. And if the end of that book is any\nindication, I may have been right..." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Josh Geller", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2003-07-28T15:28:22+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Crowley, then ...", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, 2003-07-28 at 06:57, Craig Brewer wrote:\nI'd have to agree with most of this and add that LB is\nthe kind of book that I could only enjoy now after\nhaving read a lot of other stuff that's become more of\na literary memory than something fresh. I personally\nenjoyed it because of the strains of Renaissance\nphilosophy (ie., Bruno and neoplatonism) that ran\nthrough it." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, yes.\n\nIf Wolfe is the Catholic writer, Crowley is the Brunian/Gnostic/Hermetic\nwhatever-you-want-to-call-it Religion Mundi (that's the term!) writer \n(to draw a false exemplar)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I read in an interview that Crowley began LB as a kind\nof a \"concept book,\" intending to just write a book\nabout a family with their own private religion." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "All religion is private religion. If you are a member of a particular\nsect, all that means is that you get together with other people whose\nreligion incorporates some of the same stuff as yours.\n\nYou know, there are really a lot of people, when you add them\nall together, to whom fairies actually are part of their religion." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " And\nthe fairy stuff began as just a way to make that\nprivate religion more accessible to readers. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hmm.\n\nI have an electronic copy of that enlightening book 'The Secret\nCommonwealth Of Elves, Fauns And Fairies', by the Rev. Robert\nKirk. It dates from the seventeenth century. If anyone wants to\nlearn more about this intensely interesting subject, I will be\nhappy to email them a copy upon request.\n\nI will have to think about that comment of Crowley's some more." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " But then\nthe fairy motifs took over. In the same interview (I\nthink), Crowley admitted that it was a book which\ndidn't have the same universal scope as he tried to\nget in his Aegypt series - it was something that was\nmore of a playing out of a minor personal obsession." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I thought that was 'The Deep', which I actually prefer slightly\nto 'Engine Summer' and 'Little, Big'. But all three of them\nrank very high in my esteem. Or perhaps it was my minor personal\nobsession that Crowley was writing about in 'The Deep'. How he \nmight have managed that I have no idea, as he and I have never\nmet." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The real reason I so love that book, though, is that\nas a kid I was always hunting for fairy hills and\ncircle dances...which I always felt were just around\nthe corner. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "They are not?\n\n\n\n\n\n\n." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2003-07-28T15:13:25+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Crowley, then ...", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Not to get too far off of Crowley, but...\n\nJosh Geller pontificated:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "All religion is private religion. If you are a\nmember of a particular sect, all that means is that\nyou get together with other people whose religion \nincorporates some of the same stuff as yours." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm not sure it's quite so categorical as that. By\n\"private\" I would assume that Crowley meant highly\nidiosyncratic and a kind of belief that really wasn't\nopen to someone's \"choosing\" -- just as Smoky can\nnever really \"choose\" to believe (although the people\nwho settled in the area a few generations before Smoky\ncould be said to have \"converted\"). But I don't think\nit makes sense to call all religion \"private,\"\nespecially since institutionalized religion enters the\n\"public sphere\" in a way that my own quirky beliefs\ndon't. Maybe it's more a matter of degree, but to call\nall religion \"private\" blurs an important distinction\nbetween a public, \"official\" and even political use of\nreligion that, for example, private Theosophists might\nnot quite be capable of experiencing.\n\nBesides, Severian's New Sun was going to redeem an\nentire world, not just himself." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You know, there are really a lot of people, when you\nadd them all together, to whom fairies actually are\npart of their religion." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I certainly hope so, but who are you thinking of in particular?" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2003-07-28T14:54:32+00:00", "subject": "Re: Re: (urth) Crowley, then ...", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "-------Original Message-------" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: Josh Geller \nSent: 07/27/03 07:33 PM\nTo: urth at urth.net\nSubject: Re: (urth) Crowley, then ...\n\nOn Sun, 2003-07-27 at 17:56, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Well, it isn't so much a matter of parts. I think I got most of the\nparts. \nIt's the whole that is escaping me. Or, rather, as I asked: What's the\npoint?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Hmm." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I find 'Little, Big' to be deeply moving. I don't guess I can answer." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I would go along with this. I too find Little, Big deeply moving; but if you don't, I don't think that there's any \"key\" which will make you like it better." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But there's no accounting for tastes. Maybe you are just not meant to\nget it. I sure hope not." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Tastes do differ. There are a number of highly regarded writers (LeGuin and Delany, to name only two, in the SF field) whom I don't \"get\" and probably never will.\n\n--Adam" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "katbarx at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2003-07-28T16:11:49+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Crowley, then ...", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Alga,\n\nThanks -- this is probably the single most helpful response of the many this \n(as always)\ngenerous group has provided. As it happens, I'm _not_ up on Victorian \nfaery-lore; my\nattitude towards such has always run in the general direction of Tolkien's, \nwho generally\nloathed it: though I don't go as far as he does in thinking Shakespeare made \na travesty\nof Faerie. The books of \"fairy\" stories (as opposed to fairy-stories) I was \ngiven as a child\neither annoyed or terrified me. I preferred the latter, and still do. My \ntaste wrt Faerie is\nfor the pre-Victorian, even pre-Elizabethan, style, a twilit and parlous \nplace, the Faerie\nof \"Tam Lin\" and \"Thomas the Rhymer.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It would be interesting if you told us what you did not like. I can tell \nyou\nthat I did not like the Russell Eigenblick subplot, though I admit that he\nmanaged to fit it into the conclusion better than I expected." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, to tell the truth, there was nothing I did not like, or at least \nnothing I\ndisliked. It was just that I was disappointed; after all the commendations \nof\nCrowley in general and _Little, Big_ in particular by -- well, especially by \nyourself\nand Mantis, both of whose tastes I have come to respect very highly -- I was\nexpecting something blindingly revelatory, rather like the first time I read \n_tBotNS_,\n_The Silmarillion_, _The Moon is Down_, or _Carrion Comfort_. Instead I got\nsomething ... pleasant but uncompelling.\n\nThe obvious point of comparison to Wolfe, I suppose, is that the writing is\nquite dense in places -- _Little, Big_ took me quite a while to get through,\nwhich was only compounded by its failing to grab me by the throat and make\nme read it.\n\nShrug.\n\nCertainly not enough to put me off Crowley, but enough to decide me not\nto tackle the copy of _Aegypt_ that's been sitting on the shelves for I \ndon't\nknow how long. (Who was it that wanted a copy? We can talk.) _Especially_\nif it's heavily dependent upon alchemy, a subject to which my general \nreaction\nhas been \"Life's just too short for this.\"\n\nI think I'll try the collection, though. _Novelty_ I think." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2003-07-28T16:15:10+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Crowley, then ...", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Speaking of old Faerie epics, I keep reading\nreferences to the Huon of Bordeaux cycle. Does anyone\nknow of a good edition/translation of these stories?" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Terry Lago", "address": "tlago at chass.utoronto.ca" }, "date": "2003-07-28T16:31:07+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) Crowley, then ...", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes [mailto:katbarx at hotmail.com] \nSent: Monday, July 28, 2003 12:12 PM\nTo: urth at urth.net\nSubject: Re: (urth) Crowley, then ...\n\nAlga,\n\nThanks -- this is probably the single most helpful response of the many this\n\n(as always)\ngenerous group has provided. As it happens, I'm _not_ up on Victorian \nfaery-lore; my\nattitude towards such has always run in the general direction of Tolkien's, \nwho generally\nloathed it: though I don't go as far as he does in thinking Shakespeare made\n\na travesty\nof Faerie. The books of \"fairy\" stories (as opposed to fairy-stories) I was \ngiven as a child\neither annoyed or terrified me. I preferred the latter, and still do. My \ntaste wrt Faerie is\nfor the pre-Victorian, even pre-Elizabethan, style, a twilit and parlous \nplace, the Faerie\nof \"Tam Lin\" and \"Thomas the Rhymer.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It would be interesting if you told us what you did not like. I can tell \nyou\nthat I did not like the Russell Eigenblick subplot, though I admit that he\nmanaged to fit it into the conclusion better than I expected." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, to tell the truth, there was nothing I did not like, or at least \nnothing I\ndisliked. It was just that I was disappointed; after all the commendations \nof\nCrowley in general and _Little, Big_ in particular by -- well, especially by\n\nyourself\nand Mantis, both of whose tastes I have come to respect very highly -- I was\nexpecting something blindingly revelatory, rather like the first time I read\n\n_tBotNS_,\n_The Silmarillion_, _The Moon is Down_, or _Carrion Comfort_. Instead I got\nsomething ... pleasant but uncompelling.\n\nThe obvious point of comparison to Wolfe, I suppose, is that the writing is\nquite dense in places -- _Little, Big_ took me quite a while to get through,\nwhich was only compounded by its failing to grab me by the throat and make\nme read it.\n\nShrug.\n\nCertainly not enough to put me off Crowley, but enough to decide me not\nto tackle the copy of _Aegypt_ that's been sitting on the shelves for I \ndon't\nknow how long. (Who was it that wanted a copy? We can talk.) _Especially_\nif it's heavily dependent upon alchemy, a subject to which my general \nreaction\nhas been \"Life's just too short for this.\"\n\nI think I'll try the collection, though. _Novelty_ I think.\n\n\nIt's been awhile since I read _Little, Big_ and I was relatively unimpressed\nby it myself. (Though I do plan on re-reading it one of these days and see\nhow it fares.) I think in many ways you had (more or less) the 'right'\nreaction to it though...at least in as much as it seems to me that Crowley\nwas more trying to do a novelistic equivalent to a tone-poem. I think he was\nmore trying to convey a mood, along with certain artistic ideas in the\n'story' or a family and their tangled supernatural dealings.\n\nAs to _Aegypt_: I just finished reading it a few weeks back and I thoroughly\nenjoyed it. I'm now wishing I could track down a copy of _Love and Sleep_ so\nI can keep on going. It is once again a fairly plot-lite book, centring on\nthe lives of a few characters and their inter-relations (with the main\ncharacter being a disillusioned professor of history who finds that some of\nthe make-believe stories of his childhood may in fact have a firmer basis in\nreality than he had at first thought.) Basically it follows the main\ncharacter, Pierce Moffet, as he searches out the secret history of the\nworld. In does indeed have a lot to do with Renaissance alchemy and has a\nsubplot centring around the mystic philosopher Doctor John Dee and his\nattempts to communicate with Angels as well as the Giordano Bruno and his\nown discoveries which seem to mirror the ones being made centuries later my\nMoffet.\n\nAll in all a good story I thought.\n\nT." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "William Ansley", "address": "wansley at warwick.net" }, "date": "2003-07-28T16:51:03+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Crowley, then ...", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I have no idea what you think a reasonable price might be. If you want a \nphysical edition of the book, then you might try Bookfinder. I looked up \nCrowley on Bookfinder recently and they had copies of both the books you \nwant starting at about $30. Of course, those books may be sold by now and \nthis doesn't include tax or shipping.\n\n\n\nI don't consider eBay a good place to find books, but if you check it \nperiodically, you can occasionally get a great bargain.\n\n\n\nIf you are willing to read the books on a computer screen and you have a \nMicrosoft Windows PC (not Macintosh or Linux) or a Pocket PC (not a Palm), \nthen you can order electronic editions for $8 each. (Actually AEgypt seems \nto be available in a Palm compatible edition as well.)\n\n\n\nIHTIIOSSUTY*.\n\nWilliam Ansley\n\n*I hope this information is of some slight use to you.\n(I just felt like coining my own 'net acronym.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "At 08:55 AM 7/28/2003 +0100, you wrote:\nI would love to read _Aegypt_ as I understand it has a strong alchemy theme\nto it (a subject that fascinates me), but I can't find it anywhere for\nanything resembling a reasonable price (ditto _Love & Sleep_). It would seem\na shame to read _Daemonomania_ before the preceding titles, but it's the\nonly one of the three that can be bought easily." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Jordan", "address": "jbjordan4 at cox.net" }, "date": "2003-07-29T01:33:21+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Crowley, then ...", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " If'n you wanna search the Archives, you'll find a looooong \ndiscussion of LB a few years back.\n Since alga brought me up, I'll confess to starting the whole thing.\n I loved *Engine Summer* and *Great Work of Time.* I wanted to like \nLB, but the ending horrified me. Instead of being glorified in any kind of \nway that I MYSELF would like to see, they were gradually and to me \nhorrifyingly reduced to mere archetypes, flat 2-dimensional playing cards, \nstript of all human depth, fated to eternal repetition.\n When I finished the book, I ripped it in half and threw it across \nthe room. Yes, I found it very effective.\n But what was Crowley doing? Was my response his intention? I \nthought at the time that it was.\n For me, it was an anti-gospel novel. And initially I took it that \nCrowley deliberately set out to do just that, to horrify the reader and \npoint him/her back to the Christianity that the characters leave behind a \ngeneration before the novel begins. I read it as revealing the appalling \nconsequences of turning back to the pagan world.\n alga and others persuaded me that there was more to LB than that, \nand that if I did not like the book, it was not Crowley's intention to \nleave the reader appalled.\n I remain unsure of what Crowley's intention was, however. Was it \njust to write an interesting novel? Or does he see something good and \nwonderful in what happens to his characters? Is he arguing that a collapse \nback into an infantile and pagan world is what we all really need, and that \nthe depth of character into which human beings have grown during the last \nseveral millennia is something to be rejected? Or is LB basically an \nexperiment?\n He says he wanted to write a novel presenting a \"fairy religion.\" \nHe has done so, and very effectively. I continue to think LB is a brilliant \nand effective novel. But for me, it is a very effective horror novel.\n\nNutria" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Josh Geller", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2003-07-29T03:11:41+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Crowley, then ...", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, 2003-07-28 at 18:33, James Jordan wrote:\n I loved *Engine Summer* and *Great Work of Time.* " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Did you like 'The Deep'?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " I wanted to like \nLB, but the ending horrified me. Instead of being glorified in any kind of \nway that I MYSELF would like to see, they were gradually and to me \nhorrifyingly reduced to mere archetypes, flat 2-dimensional playing cards, \nstript of all human depth, fated to eternal repetition." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I do not agree that this is an accurate description of what\nhappens to the characters. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " When I finished the book, I ripped it in half and threw it across \nthe room. Yes, I found it very effective.\n But what was Crowley doing? Was my response his intention? I \nthought at the time that it was." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Are you seriously stating that this book horrified you because its\nending did not agree with your religious ideas? I find that hard to\nbelieve coming from one of your demonstrated perspicacity. Also, \nalthough I understand that you are a practicing Calvinist religious\n(and thus deeply embedded in error from my point of view), I have been\nstruck before by the depth of your tolerance of foreign religious ideas,\nsomething that I have not always met with among the Protestant clergy.\n\nThe religious viewpoint represented by John Crowley is not by any means\nthat of an orthodox Christian. I can say this with some confidence, as\nthe religious views he represents are tolerably close to my own. Now,\nyou must understand, that from my point of view, you and Dan'l are both\nheretics: the Roman Catholic Church has been in error since they\ncondemned Bruno and burned him at the stake. They are scheduled\nto come around at some point in the future, possibly before Hell freezes\nover, though were I a gambling man I'd want long odds on that last \npoint. You Calvinists have been in grave error since long before that, \nboth from the RC point of view and from ours, and from our point of\nview, your errors are far more serious than theirs. But everything is \nrelative, and I have no problem flatly stating that from the point of \nview of an orthodox or even a protestant Christian I represent an \nheretical point of view. \n\nNow where in the North or the South was I?\n\nOh yes:\n\nWhy in the four Worlds would John Crowley represent a Christian\nglorification? What possible motivation would he have for doing so?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " For me, it was an anti-gospel novel. And initially I took it that \nCrowley deliberately set out to do just that, to horrify the reader and \npoint him/her back to the Christianity that the characters leave behind a \ngeneration before the novel begins. I read it as revealing the appalling \nconsequences of turning back to the pagan world." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't know what you mean by paganism, but the viewpoint represented\nby Crowley is that of the religio mundi, which is not exactly at all\nquite the same thing as any of the definitions that I think of for\npagan. So I must ask, here, what you mean by 'pagan', and how you \nfeel JC represents this 'pagan' viewpoint. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " What do \n alga and others persuaded me that there was more to LB than that, \nand that if I did not like the book, it was not Crowley's intention to \nleave the reader appalled." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Decidedly not." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " I remain unsure of what Crowley's intention was, however. Was it \njust to write an interesting novel? Or does he see something good and \nwonderful in what happens to his characters? Is he arguing that a collapse \nback into an infantile and pagan world is what we all really need, and that \nthe depth of character into which human beings have grown during the last \nseveral millennia is something to be rejected? Or is LB basically an \nexperiment?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "James, what are you talking about? What is this 'infantile and pagan\nworld'? What do you mean exactly?\n\nThe people who got transformed into playing cards were the Emperor's \nmen. The family moved on, they went to repopulate the other World.\n\nExcept for Smoky. He died. Perhaps he got your Christian glorification.\nIt's hard to say, like it always is.\n\nAside of all this, and unrelated to anything else that we might be\ntalking about, were you aware that the doctrine of metempsychosis was\ncondemned accidentally? The council (I forget which it was, but it was\na fairly late council) condemned Origen's opinions as heretical, because\nthey did not like his Platonic doctrine that the glorified body is\nspherical. Metempsychosis was not really an issue, but once Origen was\ncondemned, all of his opinions became suspect, although as everyone\nknows he still had a tremendous influence on early Christian thought.\n\nIt happened at about this same time, that the doctrine of once-for-all\ndeath and resurrection became very popular because of the whole of its\nusefulness in social control. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " He says he wanted to write a novel presenting a \"fairy religion.\" \nHe has done so, and very effectively. I continue to think LB is a brilliant \nand effective novel. But for me, it is a very effective horror novel." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "What's horrible about it?\n\nYou spend a greater or lesser amount of time under Hill, you have a\nlife, you go back under Hill for a while, you have a life. It's\njust the doctrine of metempsychosis, sometimes (inaccurately) called\nthe doctrine of reincarnation.\n\nThe beautiful thing that JC did is that he made it so that the other \nWorld was dying, the Gentry were dying out, and they needed some new \npeople to come in, so the whole thing could go on. And the family went \nto the other World, and now it goes on. Perhaps this kind of thing needs\nto happen every so often. It's not horrible. It's very beautiful.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Alex David Groce", "address": "alex_groce at forlesen.modck.cs.cmu.edu" }, "date": "2003-07-29T04:19:36+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Crowley, then ...", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, for what it's worth, Dan'l and James seem to me to have pretty\nunusual reactions to LB. My experience with the novel is that when I\nintroduce it to someone, they either say:\n\n(1) Eh, well written but I was just bored our of my skull by page 100.\nWhat's the fuss?\n\nor\n\n(2) WOW! Fantastic! Where can I get more?\n\n\nIt's one of my very favorite novels, and while I can see James' point\n(I certainly didn't finish it wishing it were true, or thinking 'what\na lovely religion, if true'), it seems \"beside the point\" of the novel\nto me. Whatever that point is. I'm pretty sure it's not the 60's New\nYork aspect, or the hippy aspect, or Victorian children's literature\n(all I've read except Lewis Carroll was post-first-LB-read), or\nwanting to find fairies... And I'm not sure it's just a taste for the\nwriting, since some of those who've disliked it have fine taste in\nprose. I think Alice is right, in the end, pointing to a _mood_. If\nyou are caught up in that mood, you'll love it. If you aren't, which\nseems pretty independent of religious or even \"aesthethic\" opinion,\nyou won't care for it much." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "\"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.\" John 8:32\n--\nAlex David Groce (agroce+ at cs.cmu.edu)\nPh.D. Student, Carnegie Mellon University - Computer Science Department\n8112 Wean Hall (412)-268-3066\nhttp://www.cs.cmu.edu/~agroce\n\n-- " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2003-07-29T05:55:42+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Crowley, then ...", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, 2003-07-28 at 18:33, James Jordan wrote:\n\n I wanted to like\nLB, but the ending horrified me. Instead of being glorified in any kind\nof\nway that I MYSELF would like to see, they were gradually and to me\nhorrifyingly reduced to mere archetypes, flat 2-dimensional playing\ncards,\nstript of all human depth, fated to eternal repetition." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is, to me, an astonishing reaction, yet on reflection I can understand\nit. One of the notworthy things about LITTLE,BIG is that ultimately it\ndoes not conceal or soften the traditional cruelty of Fairyland.\n\n\n hartshorn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Jordan", "address": "jbjordan4 at cox.net" }, "date": "2003-07-29T16:08:22+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Crowley, then ...", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Josh,\n Thou hast queried:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Did you like 'The Deep'?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " Yes, I did.\n\n Then, thou hast responded to severall things I wrote. Let me say \nthat I was giving my PERSONAL reaction to LB. And my initial one. alga and \nothers set me straight about some things.\n Sure, I'm an evangelical Christian. So, I would not \"like\" a novel \nthat ended in a homosexual marriage. At the same time, I might wonder what \nthe author intended me to feel. Did he/she want me to be happy at the \nhomosexual marriage, or were there clews in the novel that indicated I was \nnot supposed to be happy about it.\n I really was not sure about LB, and that's what initiated the long \ndiscussion that can be read in the archives, and what I was getting at in \nmy post. I sure don't want to open up another discussion of LB. I think it \nwas pretty thoroughly gone over a few years ago." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": " I wanted to like\nLB, but the ending horrified me. Instead of being glorified in any kind of\nway that I MYSELF would like to see, they were gradually and to me\nhorrifyingly reduced to mere archetypes, flat 2-dimensional playing cards,\nstript of all human depth, fated to eternal repetition." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I do not agree that this is an accurate description of what\nhappens to the characters." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " Maybe not. It's how it seemed to me, and still does to a large \nextent. But that's fine. You're probably right and I'm probably wrong!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": " When I finished the book, I ripped it in half and threw it across\nthe room. Yes, I found it very effective.\n But what was Crowley doing? Was my response his intention? I\nthought at the time that it was." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Are you seriously stating that this book horrified you because its\nending did not agree with your religious ideas?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " No, in fact the reverse. I suspected, wrongly, that Crowley was \nwriting a cautionary tale, showing the gradual corruption and lessening \n(shrinkage) of human beings who turn \"back\" from \"Western civilization\" \ninto an occult world." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I find that hard to\nbelieve coming from one of your demonstrated perspicacity. Also,\nalthough I understand that you are a practicing Calvinist religious\n(and thus deeply embedded in error from my point of view), I have been\nstruck before by the depth of your tolerance of foreign religious ideas,\nsomething that I have not always met with among the Protestant clergy." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " Thanks. I'm tolerant in some ways, not in others. But I did not \ndislike LB because of intolerance, but because it horrified me personally. \nIt was a personal reaction.\n Jewish people don't like the great comedy \"The Merchant of \nVenice,\" because they don't accept Paul's statement in Romans chapter 11 \nthat was taken (at the time) as a prediction that the conversion of the \nJews would usher in the Millennium. Shakespeare wants his audience to be \nhappy about the conversion of Shylock's daughter, and the \"spoiling of \nEgypt\" of Shylock's goods. Jewish people, however, are not going to view \nthe play as a religious comedy, but as a tragedy.\n So, for me, LB was a tragedy, not a comedy. My initial question \nway back when was what Crowley intended." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The religious viewpoint represented by John Crowley is not by any means\nthat of an orthodox Christian. I can say this with some confidence, as\nthe religious views he represents are tolerably close to my own." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " Yes, that became clear to me in the discussion we had here. I'm 30 \nyears away from reading through all of Francis Yates, and the materials \nfrom her circle, so I was a bit slow to pick up on Crowley's perspective. \nAnd I had not read AEgypt at the time I read LB." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't know what you mean by paganism, but the viewpoint represented\nby Crowley is that of the religio mundi, which is not exactly at all\nquite the same thing as any of the definitions that I think of for\npagan. So I must ask, here, what you mean by 'pagan', and how you\nfeel JC represents this 'pagan' viewpoint." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " By \"pagan\" I meant a world in which people are strictly governed \nby archetypes and cycles. I should think hermeticism (religion mundi) to be \na kind of sophisticated paganism. I did not mean an \"insult\" by calling it \npagan." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "James, what are you talking about? What is this 'infantile and pagan\nworld'? What do you mean exactly?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " It seemed to me that the family were \"reduced\" to a kind of \ntimeless and cyclical existence, like children. Timeless cycles are what \nEliade has analyzed in contrast to Judeo-Christianity's eschatological \nlinear time. That's the kind of thing I had in mind." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The people who got transformed into playing cards were the Emperor's\nmen. The family moved on, they went to repopulate the other World." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " It looked like \"both\" to me, that these were two complementary \nportrayals of what became of the family. As I say, that's how it looked to \nme when I read LB. On reflection, I think you are right." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Except for Smoky. He died. Perhaps he got your Christian glorification.\nIt's hard to say, like it always is." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " alga argued that Smokey's death is essential to opening the door \nto the move of the rest of the family into fairyland, so that Smokey is a \nkind of hermetic version of Christ. Makes sense to me." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": " He says he wanted to write a novel presenting a \"fairy religion.\"\nHe has done so, and very effectively. I continue to think LB is a \nbrilliant\nand effective novel. But for me, it is a very effective horror novel." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "What's horrible about it?\n\nYou spend a greater or lesser amount of time under Hill, you have a\nlife, you go back under Hill for a while, you have a life. It's\njust the doctrine of metempsychosis, sometimes (inaccurately) called\nthe doctrine of reincarnation.\n\nThe beautiful thing that JC did is that he made it so that the other\nWorld was dying, the Gentry were dying out, and they needed some new\npeople to come in, so the whole thing could go on. And the family went\nto the other World, and now it goes on. Perhaps this kind of thing needs\nto happen every so often. It's not horrible. It's very beautiful." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " Okay. Just think of me as a Jew watching *The Merchant of Venice*!\n Josh, I have no axe to grind here. I initially wondered what \nCrowley intended in LB. I shared that to show how the discussion began a \nfew years back.\n I hope this clarifies things.\n\nNutria" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Josh Geller", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2003-07-29T16:47:03+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Crowley, then ...", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 09:08, James Jordan wrote:\nJosh wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Did you like 'The Deep'?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " Yes, I did." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It's about my favorite J Crowley, mostly." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " Then, thou hast responded to severall things I wrote. Let me say \nthat I was giving my PERSONAL reaction to LB. And my initial one. alga and \nothers set me straight about some things." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Very good. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " I really was not sure about LB, and that's what initiated the long \ndiscussion that can be read in the archives, and what I was getting at in \nmy post. I sure don't want to open up another discussion of LB. I think it \nwas pretty thoroughly gone over a few years ago." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I will check out the archives. \n\nMeanwhile, I would like to respect your desire not to open another\ndiscussion about 'Little, Big', and so I will not respond to your\npoints below. Perhaps after I have read the archives I will have\nsomething to ask you or someone else, but not now.\n\nThank you for being so gracious.\n\n\nJ.\n\n___" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Jordan", "address": "jbjordan4 at cox.net" }, "date": "2003-07-30T16:53:18+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Crowley, then ...", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "At 11:47 AM 7/29/2003, you wrote:\nMeanwhile, I would like to respect your desire not to open another\ndiscussion about 'Little, Big', and so I will not respond to your\npoints below. Perhaps after I have read the archives I will have\nsomething to ask you or someone else, but not now.\n\nThank you for being so gracious." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Josh,\n alga and mantis are two resident experts, and there are others. If \nall of you folks want another round on Crowley, that's fine with me. I just \ndon't have much to contribute.\n\nJim" } ] } ] }